and i cannot recall the passage you're talking about in which the killing of the peaceful protester. do you remember which book that was in?

i am trying to remember, but my only thought on it is; i think the fact that although the person might not have been physically assaulting richard, the goals and ideal for which the protester was standing were so toxic that to allow that person to live would do more harm than good. once again, if you were in a bar sitting next to a young adolf hitler who was just sitting there. this is before mein kampf, before nazi germany, before the holocaust. would you take action and kill the man then and there and spare the world all that was to come? i think that i would. and at that moment i would have been killing an "innocent" party at the time, but sparing the world the spreading of the disease of hatred and genocide.

but, i don't know the exact moment you're talking about, so i could be completely off from my analysis of the action. i just hope you find it so i can look back on it again.

oh, i just read a review for the series up to Faith of the Fallen (easily one of the worst in the series) from http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1695-Goodkind.aspx, and i think it's funny how the author of this review wants to credit the thought that "existence exists" to rand. true, she might have said that. but it's also straight up heidegger. he was the one that stated an object projects itself AS itself to the world. so, a trashcan trashcans, a letter letters, and soforth. therefore existence exists. and, between the two minds of rand and heidegger, i would put heidegger as far more influential in the world of philosophy and hermeneutics than rand ever could have dreamt of being.

also, from reading what Goodkind says about his philosophy, he seems more to be a pragmaticist akin to Charles S. Peirce than anything else.

I do not remember which book that was in, i might be able to find out...but not for some time.

As for killing Hitler in his youth, are you kidding me? There is simply no way to guarantee outcomes, and on top of that, thats the entire problem that the US is facing with pre-emptive strikes. It does not work, and its simply not justifiable in most cases. I don't care how toxic the woman's goals were, she was an unarmed protestor. As in, she was not carrying any weapons. That is a MASSIVE moral quagmire to start killing people because of what they "might" do. And on top of that, there is no way to determine what they are going to do in any case, so killing that woman had no justification. Zero.

What TG strikes me as, especially from this interview, is a blow hard. Honestly. He does not read any books? I have seen his name on book reviews, so he has to read some, and he's had to read Ayn Rand. He also said he is super meticulous about each word, but he wrote the last 80 pages of Confessor (i believe that was the one) in a massive, single sitting, stream of consciousness marathon. That would take what? Two weeks? And then he didn't bother to review it, just sent it off to his publisher.

I do not remember which book that was in, i might be able to find out...but not for some time.

As for killing Hitler in his youth, are you kidding me? There is simply no way to guarantee outcomes, and on top of that, thats the entire problem that the US is facing with pre-emptive strikes. It does not work, and its simply not justifiable in most cases. I don't care how toxic the woman's goals were, she was an unarmed protestor. As in, she was not carrying any weapons. That is a MASSIVE moral quagmire to start killing people because of what they "might" do. And on top of that, there is no way to determine what they are going to do in any case, so killing that woman had no justification. Zero.

What TG strikes me as, especially from this interview, is a blow hard. Honestly. He does not read any books? I have seen his name on book reviews, so he has to read some, and he's had to read Ayn Rand. He also said he is super meticulous about each word, but he wrote the last 80 pages of Confessor (i believe that was the one) in a massive, single sitting, stream of consciousness marathon. That would take what? Two weeks? And then he didn't bother to review it, just sent it off to his publisher.

I honestly think the guys just a liar.

I have never read Rand, and I read a hell of a lot. Just because Rand's well known doesn't mean everyone's read her. And I could write 80 pages in one day, so I don't see why anyone else couldn't, particularly someone who has written as much as Goodkind.

I will concede that Goodkind can get preachy and redundant and repetetive. But I do not agree that he is a total objectivist. And maybe his views seem harsh, but which is better: killing one person who might destroy the world if left alive, or sitting on your hands and letting them get on with it? That makes you party to whatever they do with the life you spare, and if they use it like Hitler used his, you are party to the death and suffering of millions, however indirectly. Wouldn't you want to stop a terrible disaster from happening, if you could? I know I would, unless I knew that would only make it worse.

Actually, Rand is only moderately well known, mostly because her little theory is mostly bunk, and seems to appeal to a few. As for writing 80 pages in a day, i call nonsense. Maybe you could do it, but from what i understand of Terry's dyslexia problem, he agonizes over each paragraph - and he has also said that he considers each and every word as he writes it. Now assuming that he writes so slow because he does not bother to go back and revise when he's done, 80 pages sounds like a farse.

Also consider, if he were to write a minimum of like 3.3 pages an hour, it would take 24 hours. Now assuming that he didn't stay up an entire day, that means he was doing more than that. What, 5 pages an hour? That would take him 16 hours still. 10 pages an hour perhaps? Thats 8 hours. His having written for years is pretty irrelevant. From what i've read of a number of authors, they put out a certain amount of work at a time no matter what...Stephen King has written a truckload of books, and he has a time period which he forces himself to get out a certain amount...and will stay sitting until he does. I know from my own writing that that sort of marathon would be highly unlikely. Not impossible, and i can concede that perhaps he can do it...just considering his problems, i find it hard to believe. Of course, his work is not high art, so perhaps it is possible.

And, no offense, but your "what if this dood was teh EVIL", is a little too simplistic. There can be no knowing before hand, for all that history seems to try and paint that everyone knew what Hitler was going to do, that is patently false. No one had a clue, and in any case...what if you're wrong?
Now i will concede that there are some bad men out there, there always has been, and somehow we have managed to survive. But this is all redundent, because i was talking about unarmed protestors. Peaceful protestors. People without weapons....they generally don't destroy the world, and even if you disagree with their stance, i'm pretty sure that they don't deserve to die for disagreeing with you. Look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they disparraged against Bush, the US went and deep sixed itself in terms of free and equal speech. And guess what, they were right, so what does that say about guys like Goodkind who think there is only one solution.

" Wouldn't you want to stop a terrible disaster from happening, if you could? I know I would, unless I knew that would only make it worse."

This, in a nutshell, completely validates my point. You will never know if it only makes things worse. For instance, the democratically elected president of Iran was removed by British and US interests because of oil, and in his place the Shah was installed in the hopes he would be more western and less willing to nationalize the oil industry. Now look at the mess. My point is that people often give others cause to hate them, or fight against them, and one needs to consider all the consequences of their actions...simply killing is not the answer.

Consider this. What if they had assinated Hitler at some earlier point? Would the German people, who at the time were being crushed by the Treaty of Versailles after WWI, suddenly looked upon him as a martyr? What if their entire war machine started up because of what they saw as the unprovoked murder of a young intellectual...someone that was giving them pride again? Perhaps nothing would change, perhaps in fact now Germany would be a country openly hostile to the west because of this "what if" scenario. Things are simply too complicated to simply start throwing bullets and bombs.

I know that we cannot always be sure of what will happen; usually we can't. But the characters in Goodkinds world had something to help them, in a way: prophecy. And foresight isn't always that hard to come by; common sense would tell you if what someone was doing could be damaging to the rest of society. Someone who tortures animals, for instance, could be a step short of moving on to people.I am not saying I agree with Goodkind on everything. He can be a bit extreme in his views, when I would be less so. Parts of the philosophy and beliefs set forward in the book make me a little uncomfortable. Some parts were difficult to read through, because of this. I'm not saying he's god. But he makes some good points, even if they're not the ones you want to hear. Disagreeing with something doesn't make it untrue, anymore than you can make the sun cease to rise by believing it won't. Never say there is no black or white. Compromise can be the wrong thing. We compromised by letting Hitler have Czecheslovakia, and he wasn't satisfied; he invaded neutral Belgium. Neutral. Neutrality will not always protect you. Wanting peace does not mean you will get it.I've written ten page essays in an hour, and easily. I may not be dyslexic, but I'm a terrible typer, slow enough perhaps to match his speed, and I also think through my words. It isn't impossible. Maybe he *is* exaggerating, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Hello guys i just thought i would post in here as i am currently reading the sword of truth series and i am upto Chainfire at the moment and have thusfar found the series to be quite entertaining as a general fantasy book where it covers almost everything from knights to dragons wizards to demons and so on.

A relatively new convert, I am reading Stone of Tears right now. The first book, Wizard's First Rule totally intrigued me and I decided to dive into book 2. So far it's a bit wordy, as is Goodkind's wont, but I'm still enjoying it.

Legend of the Seeker? What is that? Not sure if I've heard of it XD But now you've got me all curious.

He can be quite wordy, but I encourage you to keep reading :3 I absolutely love the books, and the characters, no matter what flaws there might be, or how repetitive he might sometimes get. They grip me like few books can, because they're full of such powerful feeling...

Ooooh I'll have to look for it. I had no idea that even existed, haha. It would be daunting (and maybe even impossible) to make the books into movies... A tv series would be easier. And I think Haldir might make a good Darken Rahl... Hmm...

Well, it is done by the directors of such shows as Xena and Hercules. Well, what do you expect in New Zealand? It is definitely not following the books, they are using a huge license to change things. It is a bit campy but not as good as the books. Do check it out for yourself though.

Some places get it on Saturday night and we get it Sunday evening. Check online at Legend of the Seeker.

Spring come quickly!!~*Sister of the Twilight*~~*Daughter of the Moon*~

I read the summary of it, and now I want to stab someone? They messed it all up! Richard doesn't know who Kahlan is, there is no blond woman riding with Kahlan, Kahlan wasn't even riding but on foot, as were her pursuers, and Richard did NOT get the Book of Counted Shadows from Kahlan! D: I think I'll stick to the books if they're gonna butcher it that badly. Those things matter. They kept the book interesting, when some people knew things others did not. How would they even handle the ending, if everyone already knows everything and they've screwed it up like that? It's not a movie. It's a bloody TV show. They didn't have to make changes. It would be able to go on longer if they left everything the way it was, which is sort of the point, isn't it?

Sorry if I sound pissed off; I'm just rather disappointed in this attempt. It's not directed at you.

OK! :D:D:D Last action on this thread is from 2008, but I have recently found these books,and so - have given it the bump!
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

First of all, loved the first book. It was a great hook into the series. I am on the second one right now, Stone of Tears, and find myself a little ticked off at the author. :D:D Not because he's done anything wrong, but because the main characters did not enjoy any sort of break between stories! Through the course of hte first book, I waited for a resolution,and it finally came, and I was happy. And then...BAM! back to uncertainty and danger and alarm and unhappiness! :D:D:D:D:D:D

ah well. Not my story to write and direct. And I am enjoying it, even if I did not get at least a little "happy right now", if not "happy ever after".
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

A co-worker told me the third book is "awful". I don't know his tastes or reading levels, so I am going to reserve judgement for myself, thanks very much, Mr. Coworker! :D:D:D:D:D:D

I have only just learned,too, from this thread, that the Legend of the Seeker is supposedly based on these books. Saw a few rant type posts, just above. Enough to warn me off it entirely. I never did pick up watching the series, so it is no loss to me, to forego it now. It would have stuck in my craw, had I found it, after reading the books. The only shot it has with me was if I had seen it, and liked it, without ever knowing the books first. I feel fortunate! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Ok - so I do have one question, and it has to be answered by someone who has read both Goodkind and Robert Jordan. Do you notice a LOT of similarities in these stories? :D:D:D:D:D I really and truly do, and it makes me wonder who was copying who! :D:D:D Which one was written first? I wouldn't call it plagiarism, not by a mile. But there are strong similarities in the worlds, and how the story unfolds, and all that. The farther I read, the more I notice it.

Of course, certain elements of fantasy can be expected to turn up in almost every story, but still...it is remarkable how much they have in common. :D:D:D:D:D:D Anyone else notice this?

Mind you - I am not criticizing or blaming or even judging. I am enjoying both series', so it's a win/win for me. Just wonder whether anyoen else has spotted this? And if this has been discussed before, and I didn't spot it, it's because I didn't read the entire thread! Too many years, too much water under that bridge!

Wildwood my problem with the Terry Goodkind books is much what you found. They all have the same formula. Starts out goes to a struggle that pulls them apart then they finally get together again. But the next book is the same in that they never get a chance to enjoy much time together before conflict again. I agree the first book was great. I read about 6 of them then could not take anymore. My beloved has read them all but I just can not do that.

I am disappointed in the tv series since it quickly left following the books at all. I guess that it might be a good thing actually but I never got into the show.

Spring come quickly!!~*Sister of the Twilight*~~*Daughter of the Moon*~

VAna, as you may imagine, I could NEVER support any tv show or movie that entirely departed from the source material from which it claims to spring! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

I have noticed a definite rhythm. I'm about halfway through the third book now. I disagree with my coworker. I don't find it awful. But it is the same pattern of being trapped apart from one another, by destiny, and then somehow (at least hopefully) getting back together again.

Is there an over-arcing story here, in this traveling from one bad guy/bad situation to another? What I mean is - at the end of the first book, you think they've vanquished the danger, the imminent threat, because they've vanquished Darken Rahl.

Then - in the second book, you find out there is a darker threat, and it has to be averted. It is. But then - here I am in the third, and there is yet another threat! So is this all building up to a revelation of the true big-bad? I would be disappointed if it turned out they were all just stories, no their own, with no thread to tie them together. Then it really would be irritating to have been dragged through all the ups and downs. :D:D:D:D

Anyhow - I am fairly on the hook by this point. I haven't seen anything that would make me want to put them down just yet. But I just hope the payoff is there, by series' end! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

It does all have a connecting thread, to an extent, but Goodkind tried to write the books in such a way that they would each be able to stand on their own as well. They're the sort of books that don't resolve until almost the very end.

Read the whole series all the way to Confessor and enjoyed many of the characters, the storyline. Found that there was a bit too much repeat throughout the books for my taste, not a big fan of that part of Goodkind's writing.

I've been watching the Legend of the Seeker, pretty decent, like how they changed some of it up and mixed several ideas so that even the people who have read the series don't know what to expect next.

Just heard that the series is to be canceled, apparently, so I am sorry for you on that score. I never watched it, though! So I am safe! :D:D:D:D:D

I am in the fourth book, right now. Temple of the Winds...pretty good read. Its not gonna go down on my list of series that I read incessantly, over and over again, but it is good enough to make me want to keep buying the next book, to see where it goes. :D:D:D:D

Am getting more than a little tired of the constant threat to the relationship (Kahlan/Richard) though. I am hoping there is a point to it, and that it is not a soap-opera like "get 'em together/break 'em up/get 'em back together" thing, where it is just done to increase the drama! :D:D:D:D

In soaps, I realize this is the whole POINT of it all. In my books, I don't want to see this sort of thing! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

I do not mean to offend the sensibilities of anyone, but I really don't like this book. I drudging through the first book. I got up to page 200 and was so turned off I had to put it down for about 6 months. I recently picked it back up and have been trying to get half way through. It's difficult and painful.

First, some good things. The tiny fantasy things, the little details are very well created. The setting, so to speak, is will thought out. Also, some of the "deep thought" aspects of the books are well crafted. But there is little more of value.

There is so much to say about the book that needs MAJOR revision and work. For me, it amounts to this: I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THE CHARACTERS. And, if you don't believe the characters, the whole rest of the book falls apart. As far as the characters go, my summary of them is this: there is much ado about nothing.

How many times do the characters have to say, "I'm your friend, (name)." to remind the other character(s) that they are friend? It begins to sound like they are trying to convincw themselves of a lie, that they are not really a friend.

Overall, I would never recommend this book to anyone. I still have yet to reach pg 400. I don't know if I can make it.

I thought the first four books in this series were fantastic. Once I hit book 5, that's when I lost interest. The story starts with the main characters but then for a really REALLY long time it goes to these other characters that are seemingly irrelevant and extremely boring. maybe i'll come back to it one day.

orcslayr23 wrote:I thought the first four books in this series were fantastic. Once I hit book 5, that's when I lost interest. The story starts with the main characters but then for a really REALLY long time it goes to these other characters that are seemingly irrelevant and extremely boring. maybe i'll come back to it one day.

It was a little rough at first, but I really loved that he did that. He expanded his world and showed us that we could develope a connection with lesser characters. Plus, I think it was a great example of the people Richard struggled against. The second book was my least favorite due to the graphic nature of the murders. Reading "Name Of the Wind" by Patrick Rothfuss right now, but I will be reading "Chainfire" shortly thereafter.